The New York Times, as has been noted before, has a remarkable history of “uncovering” stories just before major elections, stories that seem to have the common element of hurting Republican chances in the polls. That the stories often fall apart under closer scrutiny is, I’m sure, just another terrible, awful coincidence.
But this week, I’m starting to wonder if the Times is shading their bets a bit, by taking a few actions that, in the long run, might actually HELP the GOP.
First up, John Kerry dislocated that lantern jaw of his and shoved his foot right down his throat by clumsily turning a cheap shot against President Bush into a slam against US forces in Iraq. Lurch finally took enough dope-slaps from other Democrats and issued a quarter-assed apology (it didn’t even rate as “half-assed”), and the Democrats hoped the furor would die out before the elections.
Then Seymour Hersh, the Times’ superstar, stepped into the fray.
Hersh gave a speech in Montreal last week, and the “pull quote” everyone is focusing on is this:
“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”
It was very reminiscent of John Kerry’s own testimony before Congress back in 1971:
“They told stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country …”
And, also, reminiscent of Kerry’s statement on Meet The Press, when he was representing Viet Nam Veterans Against The War:
“There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.”
Gee, it’s almost like the Times is trying to reaffirm the classic liberal stereotype that they “loathe the military.”
Then, today, they have their story about Iraq’s nuclear research program. Once again, on the surface, it appears another hatchet job on the Bush administration: either through incompetence or for sheer political gain, they released highy-sensitive nuclear secrets.
That’s the sizzle, though. Here’s the steak, buried down in the 14th paragraph:
“Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.”
It’s rather carelessly written, but the interpretation I get is that in 2002, Iraq was within a year or so of possessing a nuclear weapon. That, despite 11 years of UN sanctions and inspections to prevent just that.
And in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein.
I don’t like to put too much stock in the New York Times, but to me that looks suspiciously like the “smoking gun” everyone said didn’t exist.
So, why would the Times release — less than a week before the elections — a story that tends to disprove the arguments of so many on the Left, that Saddam had no WMDs, no WMD programs, and did not pose an “imminent threat?” Sheer incompetence is one possibility — there’s certainly no lack of precedent for that. But could it, instead, be designed to balance out their previous biased coverage and manufactured stories that have backfired so often in the past? Could they be looking to curry favor with the GOP, just in case the Democrats don’t pull off a major victory on Tuesday?
Nah. I don’t think they’re that smart.
I’d rather think it’s another amazingly brilliant move by Karl Rove. After all, he gets credit for everything else.
Hersh writes for the New Yorker, not the Times.
They both start with “n,” so that’s probably how you got confused.
Scraps
You’re such a nut job I uusually ignore you(hard to believe you’re an EMT what with all the bloodshed you call for) but I can’t resist.
Is all that uranium somewhere where they keep all those, you know secret, UFOs? And how often have you ridden in one?
Take your Depacote please.
Now I know that there are at least one or two of you righties who can actually read and don’t have to get your news from Oxy Limbaugh. So, for those of you who do would you just go and read the actual report from the actual agency that actually investigated and actually wrote a report? For those with a short attention span here’s part of the conclusion. As I said before you folks are desperate and amazingly pathetic. Drowning in quicksand and grasping at the reeds on the bank.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
“Conclusion
In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons – the most lethal weapons of mass destruction – inspections in Iraq are moving forward. Since the resumption of inspections a little over three months ago – and particularly during the three weeks since my last oral report to the Council – the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq, and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any efforts to revive its past nuclear programme during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt. At this stage, the following can be stated:
There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.
There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.
Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.”
“Lee, you are a complete idiot. They have found enough WMD to kill everyone who lives in the State you, unfortunately, call home.”
“Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III”
Talking out of your *ss again Zelda? You don’t even know what state I live in….
On Tuesday Lee and I will be living in the same state. The great state of Euphoria.
On Tuesday Lee and I will be living in the same state. The great state of Euphoria.
Champagne tends to go flat when opened too soon. I’d put a cork in it before then if I were you. (Actually, I’d recommend you put a cork in it most of the time.) Oh, and try this little reminder on: 2004 and exit polls.
And one more thing: when AND if Dems do take one of the Houses, we’ll all be living in the same state: Congressional Gridlock and Presidential Vetoes.
I’ve eaten crown before Peter. I’m man enough to admit it. But this time I think I’m going to be eating filet mignon and drinking sparkling water, unless we get both houses in which case it will be filet and champagne.
I’m sorry I forgot that the right loons believe in a one party, one branch of government. How silly of me. Long Live Emperor Alfred E Bush!!!
Yes, the children, Lee and Hugh, have come out to play.
I voted today but it was anti-climactic. I’ve got a left wing loon incumbent congressman, so I had to vote for the right wing loon who opposed him, but it won’t do any good on that front.
I did for for some law and order types for trial and appellate judges, which will at least gird up, hopefully, one of the three branches down here in N.C.
But no Kerry, Pelosi, et al. I really need a good Presidential election to make me feel like I got in some good licks on the retard Dems (I know, redundant).
My kids are going to Catholic school, most likely–hope we have a 2nd and a 3rd. Hell, I mght have 5 more if it will counterbalance all the latte-sipping fags and whores in the blue states who aren’t procreating.
Heh.
ooops….crow
Mitchell:
Whast a fabulous role model you are for those catholic children of yours…”fags”, “whores”. A good Christian man you beieve I’ll bet….Jesus would kick your ass.
Oh, please consider castration.
Actually Mitchell there is no question but that you are not a Christian.
I’m sorry I forgot that the right loons believe in a one party, one branch of government.
We do? Who said it? When? In what context? Prove it.
And…
Calling for someone’s castration is remarkably hypocritical and smacks of cheap moral superiority, especially just after chastising and accusing someone for being a poor Christian.
Mitchell:
As a Catholic, I’ve gotta say calling people “whores” and “fags” isn’t very Christian or Catholic, particularly since whores (like Mary Magdelena) and “unclean women” (like the Samaritan woman at the well) and the oppressed and sick were the very people Christ reached out to first.
At the very least, doing so just perpetuates and reinforces the Left’s steortypes of ALL people on the right as being bigoted and/or racist at core. Sorry to chastize.
(This has been completely off topic.)
“Of course Americans should vote Democrat,” Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, and infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity said. Who’s the enemy again? and why are democrats standing on the same side as Terrorists?
You know, I am not Catholic, but I have to hand it to them, at least they know what they believe in, and are understandably more critical of our society than some of us good Protestants are.
I made these statements because of the in-your-face gay and promiscuous/abortion on demand crowd that animates and is the core of the Dim Party.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are a very large interest group now in that Party. And I could not care less what some lazy-minded lib. might think of my post. I’ve got more advanced degrees than most of ’em, not that it matters, but I’m certainly not cowed by their schtick–a thinking person can hold such views.
If you think otherwise, then your playing into the whole wussification of the country(tm) which is just what they intend.
I like my balls, thank you very much.
If you have a problem with the substance of my “attack,” I’d be happy to discuss. Otherwise, think it through a bit more.
Peter F., this reminds me of you:
“Most mainline Protestant churches are, to one degree or another, post-Christian. If they no longer seem disposed to converting the unbelieving to Christ, they can at least convert them to the boggiest of soft-left political clichĂ©s, on the grounds that if Jesus were alive today he’d most likely be a gay Anglican bishop in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally friendly car with an ‘Arms Are for Hugging’ sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams.”
Mark Stey, America Alone.
I hope I’m wrong.
Mitchell,
Having spent the first 30 of my first 40 years in life living in the SF Bay Area, I’m keenly well aware of gay activists and pro-abortion advocates and their propensity for shrill, self-righteous political posturing and the pushing of their agendas, so you’re hardly bursting my bubble. (i’ve been fighting with them for years as many are my friends! LOL)
Anyway, like you, I disagree with much of what they promote and they are supremely hypocritical. Moreover, I loathe politcal correctness; it’s a disease of thought and language and has (to borrow your phrase) wussified the country. However, my only point is this: As somewho holds advanced degrees, by sterotyping and refering to them as “fags” and “whores” only serves to debase and delegitimize your argument. That’s all I’m saying.
“get over it”…was not the repeated mantra by the really right after 2000 and 2004? Let me tell you…you will not get “over it”…you will bitch and point fingers…that is what losers like the Dems in 2000 and 2004 did…after Tues…it will happen here…when it does,,I hope you will embrace the irony…’cause you know someone like Lee will post “get over it” …and they will have the right to do so…(I will not post such crap cause I still havn’t gotten over John Anderson’s stilled voice…)
Peter: I’m am not as sensitized to what you have to put up with in S.F. Even in Raleigh, N.C. most are pretty mild in their criticism of this crew. Maybe we need to ratchet it up a bit, and call a spade a spade, so to speak.
All the modest dialogue with them only seems to play to their attempts to “normalize” their lifestyle.
God Bless you in old S.F.! Tough work!
M
Mitchell:
It’s disgusting watching you try to rationalize those despicable words you used. As I said I don’t see you as a Christian.
You are regularly self-righteous and pompous in your posts. Do you say “fags” and whores” in front of your children? If not, why?
Gays are a very large interest group, therefore it’s ok for me to call them a fag is what your statement means. How weak. How pathetic. And you don’t have the friggin balls to own the slur and say it was a mistake on your part to say it. Do you stand by those words?
One of the complete turnoffs to me about the “Christian right-wing” is just what you’ve done. it’s the Colorado pastor today who was exposed (no pun intended). You pontificate with an air of moral superiority, judge other peoples values loudly and often. But you call gays “fags” and others “whores”.
You make me sick. That attitude and belief system has begun to make the country sick. Not too soon. It’s not the left that’s effete, it’s you and your fellow righties.
There have been several posters who have cited me committing myself to education as a reason for home schools..I will give credit for those who take the time and effort to those whom home school..however..home school too often restricts the social interaction…
Sooner or later all our children will grow up and be faced with conflicts to their core beliefs…at that time it is up to them..not us…to mitigate those experiences…all i try to do is give them the basic language and mathimatical tools to assist them in their journey…whatever “moral” filters in place are up to the parents..
Hugh,
In case you missed it before (apparently you did), let me repeat myself from previous post:
Calling for someone’s castration is remarkably hypocritical and smacks of cheap moral superiority just after chastising and accusing someone for being a poor Christian!
Lee, your reply idicates and IQ of about 20. That may be a little on the high side. Judging from most of your posts I was sure single digits were idicated. Over 1000 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq. It really is not relevant which state you infest.
Then there’s this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6114458.stm
that sure makes it appear to me as if Saddam was trying to build nukes.
You did know that Seymour Hersh doesn’t write for the New York Times, right?
No, no you didn’t.
“But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.”
You did know that Iraq was a year away from having nukes, but the year was 1990?
No, no you didn’t.
You did know that Republicans posted instructions on how to build a nuke, being careful to leave them in their original Arabic so that terrorists didn’t have to translate, right?
No, no you didn’t.
Your blog post would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.
Anybody hear of the word VETO? So what if you libs do pick up a seat or two. What good will it do you? Huh.
let’s backtrack a little:
Republicans are saying these documents prove it was right for the US to invade so Saddam didn’t sell the plans to Iran or terrorists, correct?
But now it’s revealed that because of Republican pressure (both Congressmen and the wingnuts here at Wizbang and their ilk) to prove the war was worth it, they print all these documents unfiltered on the internet for ANYONE TO GET FOR FREE!
Further, inspections in Iraq through 1998 showed his nuke program had not restarted. The inspections in 2002 also showed it had not restarted. He may have wanted to, and France and Russia may have wanted to remove sanctions, but there is no way the US or Britain would have allowed it, so there is no way Saddam would have been able to start a nuke program again, as much as he may have wanted to.
Moreso, there is NO WAY Saddam would have given the plans to Iran. As much as Saddam hated the US, he hated Iran more. There is no way he would have given critical military information to strengthen his biggest strategic opponent. (al Qaeda, more likely, still very unlikely, but al Qaeda would have had a hard time doing anything with them considering they had no scientific infrastructure to construct a bomb.)
Finally, let’s not forget that AQ Khan was selling nuke program details in the late 90s-early 00s. So any country or terrorist could have gone to him to get them and not deal with the scrutiny that would surround Saddam.
So in conclusion, you all are fucking idiots for thinking this proves anything other than Repubs were more concerned about politics than national security.
(I know, I know, NSA and SWIFT, but which is worse, general statements that we’re tapping phones and tracing bank records, stuff that everyone already knew, or actual engineering specs for nuclear weapons? I think the answer is pretty obvious, I hope you all do too.)
Peter:
You are absolutley correct. I was out of line with the castration comment. My apology to Mitchell.
While you all are mocking the NYT here is what ultra Neocon. Richard “prince of darkness” Perle has to say about President George W. Bush’s handling of the Iraq war.
Caution, this article is for only fair minded individuals, Kool-Aid drinkers from the left and right might experience a severe case of brain explosions.
“http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?currentPage=1”
So, why would the Times release — less than a week before the elections — a story that tends to disprove the arguments of so many on the Left, that Saddam had no WMDs, no WMD programs, and did not pose an “imminent threat?”
Hobson’s Choice. Perhaps the Washington Post had the story as well…Lose/lose situation. Hold the story back, and the Post has a scoop, or release it now and claim the scoop, but rally the Right base.
Hugh, we are all big boys and girls here. No need to apologize to me. I like the rough and tumble of telling it exactly how you see it.
I think we should look beyond labels like “fag” and “whore,” which we all use for effect, to the substance of the issue. My point was that it is important to fight for the values that to date have made our civilization great, but are now under assault.
It does not benefit your argument, or Lee’s/Mantis’ et al, to cite some creepy gay evangelical, or Mark Foley.
That there are those who would engage in perversion on the Right does not in any respect weaken the moral claims and values we, or even they, espouse.
If you have a problem with fighting jihadists, or keeping child predators off the street, or raging gays away from our children as “role models,” then let’s have that discussion. But quit with the whining about some harsh language. We’re all grown ups here (well, at least in age).
And quit being hypocritical about it, for crying out loud.
Mitchell:
I shook hands with Oyster the other day, now you too? Ewwwww….oh well 🙂
Seymour Hersch writes for the New Yorker, you god damned moron.
The Iraqi nuclear program was from before the Gulf War. The smoking gun you are talking about doesn’t exist. The report written on 02 was to show the inspectors they were complying with the UN resolution. They would not have admitted to continuing the program into 2002 in their own report. Are you that dumb, or do you just count on your readers to be?